Originally posted by Darth Thor
Its same with muslim girls over here (and probably in the states) tbf. Its because it wouldnt be acceptable to their families. Bringing home a baby but not a husband.Yet most consider abortion a sin, so theres a natural contradiction there.
The abortion is the sin, but the premarital sex was a stairway to heaven, right?
Anti-Abortion Activists: We Took 115 Fetuses
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Police discovered five fetuses at the home of an anti-abortion activist in Capitol Hill on Wednesday.Officers responded shortly after noon to a home on the 400 block of 6th Street SE to investigate a tip about potential bio-hazard material in the residence. Once inside, they located the fetuses. The remains were collected by the D.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.
The home was occupied by Lauren Handy, an anti-abortion activist who was indicted along with nine others Wednesday by a federal grand jury. Handy is accused of felony conspiracy against rights for a blockade inside a D.C. abortion clinic in October 2020.
Once again, every conservative accusation is actually a confession.
Two anti-abortion activists made new claims Tuesday about the five fetuses police found in one of their apartments last week, attesting that a medical waste worker had allowed them to seize 115 fetuses from outside a Washington, D.C. clinic last month.
They claim they had approached and taken the fetuses from a driver for Curtis Bay Medical Waste Services who was loading boxes into a vehicle. "We asked him if he knew what was in the boxes, and after he said no, we told him: dead babies," Teresa Bukovinac said Tuesday.
Bukovinac said the driver willingly handed the box over after she and Lauren Handy told him they wanted to give the contents "a proper burial and a funeral."
Curtis Bay Medical Waste Services denied their account, and added that it does not provide services to dispose of fetuses.
The two women said that a Roman Catholic priest said Mass, and that they read aloud names that they gave to the fetuses before 110 of them were buried, with a priest present, at a location they declined to disclose.
They said their lawyer then contacted the Washington police to pick up the five remaining ones, which the activists said they considered evidence of violations of federal laws, including the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which bans certain methods to terminate pregnancies starting at 12 weeks.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
discord gang probably all like
Which is ironic, since none of them will ever touch a woman sexually, so an unplanned pregnancy is not something they will ever have to worry about:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
We have posted about this before, but the reason why conservatives eventually abandon their safe space apps is the same reason Voltron occasionally returns to sock on KMC. Because it is not about participating in a likeminded community, it is about trolling an out-group.They are losers in life who need to feel superior to someone. So they will create out-groups in their own spaces and devour each other, or they will get bored and leave, because the circlejerk does not give them the same dopamine hit as tRiGgErInG tHe LiBz.
This is what the Republican party has become. They are post-policy party. It is not longer about ideals or principles. It is not even about improving their own lives. It is about being maximally cruel to people in the out-group, so that there lives are worse than yours. They are ****ing garbage human beings.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Oh thank God. I was beginning to worry that the United States might not be the morally bankrupt and disgustingly scummy country the rest of the world believes it to be. Thank you right-wing misogynists for reminding us all to keep the f*ck away from your retarded nation.
Don't worry, if the Rightist controlled SC does away with women's rights, they'll likely take on and undo same-sex marriage/marriage equality next. So you'll have another reminder not long after.
Was going to make a seperate thread for this, but so as not to get Stilt going I'll put it here 🙂
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/how-the-leak-might-have-happened/
Among the debates generated by the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs is whether the leaker was conservative or liberal. The leak will ultimately pale in importance to the court’s decision once it is issued; the ruling will directly affect the lives and rights of tens of millions of people. But in the meantime, the motives of the leaker are an important topic because they help explain why an institution that zealously guards its secrets suddenly seems porous.Start from the premise that there were actually (at least) two leakers, and three leaks. The first leak was to the Wall Street Journal editorial board last week. In substance, it was that the court had voted to overrule Roe v. Wade, but that the precise outcome remains in doubt because Chief Justice John Roberts is trying to persuade either Justice Brett Kavanaugh or Justice Amy Coney Barrett to a more moderate position that would uphold the Mississippi abortion restriction without formally overturning Roe.
While not formally presented as relying on a leak, the editorial transparently does. The most obvious example is that it predicts that Alito is drafting a majority opinion to overrule Roe, but gives no explanation for that prediction and none is apparent. We now know that Alito did draft that opinion.
The second leak was to Politico. Likely within the past few days, a person familiar with the court’s deliberations told them that five members of the court – Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – originally voted to overturn Roe and that remains the current vote. In addition, the position of the chief justice is unclear. The remaining justices are dissenting.
The third leak was also to Politico. It was presumably – but not certainly – by the same person. Someone provided them with Alito’s Feb. 10 draft opinion.
Note as well what was not leaked. Politico seemingly was not told which justices had joined the Alito opinion. (The fact that five justices voted in December to overturn Roe as a general matter does not mean that all five of them necessarily would have agreed to sign on to Alito’s draft.) And Politico apparently was not provided with a subsequent draft, which ordinarily would have circulated to the court by now – in response to comments from some members of the would-be majority.
Here is what you would conclude is the state of play if you took all the leaks as both accurate and pretty complete (assumptions that, admittedly, are by no means certain). Alito’s opinion probably has been joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. Kavanaugh and Barrett have yet to join – most likely because they are waiting to consider an alternative opinion from the chief justice.
In these circumstances, which ideological side would think it benefits from leaking the opinion? It seems to me, that is the left. I can see conservatives believing that they would gain from leaking the fact that Kavanaugh had originally voted to strike down Roe. They might believe it would tend to lock him into that position. But that was accomplished by leaking that fact to both The Wall Street Journal and Politico.
The question here is who believed they would benefit from leaking the opinion itself. That document was much more likely to rally liberals than conservatives. It brought home the fact that the court was poised to overrule Roe in much more concrete terms than merely leaking the vote. The opinion is also a full-throated attack on abortion rights and – with important caveats – substantive due process rights more broadly. And as a first draft – without the benefit of later refinement – it does not yet present the critique of Roe in its most persuasive form.
It is also important to look at the leak of the opinion through the lens of the fact that someone – almost certainly a conservative – had just before leaked the court’s tentative decision and the state of the voting to The Wall Street Journal. That leak was itself an extraordinary and unethical breach of confidences and certainly caused very deep concern inside the court.
My guess is that someone on the left felt somewhat justified in releasing the opinion in response. Through the opinion, one would see what the Journal was saying Kavanaugh and Barrett were considering. That leak was a historically unprecedented violation of the deepest and most solemn trust among the justices and the court’s staff. It wounded the institution.
One small note about the identity of the leaker. There has been some speculation that turns on a supposed relationship with Josh Gerstein, the Politico legal affairs reporter who is the lead author on their story. It seems to me that the leak very likely runs instead through the other reporter with a byline on the story: Alexander Ward, who is a national security reporter. In response to questions from The Washington Post, Politico confirmed that the story was very tightly held from even its own staff. Almost surely, the leaker would have insisted on that confidentiality. I cannot think of a reason that Ward would have been on the story other than that the leaker communicated through him, not Gerstein. And Politico would have felt compelled to give Ward a byline on such a historic scoop.